I 472 


.88 


.B98 


^opy 1 




STATEMENT OF FACTS 



IN UUI.ATION TO 



ADMIRAL 

D. D. rORTER'8 CLAIM 



NOT TO HAYE RUN AWAY FROM FORTS ST. PHILIP 
AND JACKSON, IN APRIL, 1862, 



BY WHICH 



HIS COWARDICE AND FALSEHOOD AEE EULLY SHOWN EEOM 
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND POETER'S OWN SELF 
• CONTRADICTIONS. 



'I 



BOSTON: 

1889. 



To the JMltor of the ''Boston Herald: " — 

Several of the leading journals have printed so much misin- 
formation in regard to Admii'al Porter and myself that I pray 
they will publish the foUovi^ing statement of facts, v^^hich will 
set' to rio-hts all (luestions between us, and fix the truth for 
history. 

In a speech made in Boston, on the 1st of May, 188'J, in 
Avhich I gave due honor to the illi^strious Farragut for the capt- 
ure of New Orleans, I stated that his officers and crews were 
all heroes .save one, an officer of "high" rank, who ran away. 
The sp^cii was already in type when it was delivered. The 
statement quoted was sliown to Admiral Porter, who is reported 
to have said, the accuracy of which is not denied : — 

" There were three officers who failed to take their ships past the 
forts, who were censured by Farra,2:iit in general orders. One of the 
three, a commander, undoubtedly did behave badly and ran away. 
1 will not give you the name of the officer wlio ran away. I 
have no doubt General Butler means the same man I do." — Islew York 
Sun, May 4 ; Washington Critic, May 4. 

" Admiral Porter further remarked that he was inclined to the belief 
that General Butler must have got some other battle mixed up with that 
of New Orleans, prol)ably the battle of Mol)ile." — Boston Herald, 
May 0. 

These declarations of Porter being brought to my attention, 
I said, " P>ut I meant Porter himself; there is no mistake 
about it." I will tell you the facts : On the day after the pas- 
sage of the forts, April 24, 18(12, iu the early morning, Porter 
got sight of tbe rebcsl floating battery "^Louisiana," tied to the 
rivei'-bank. Gathering up all his mortar boats and steamers, 
with all the spare boats and spars left below the forts by Far- 
ragut, he steamed down the river as fast as he could by the 
Head of the Passes, twenty-five miles below the forts, where a 
large portion of my troops lay at anchor in sailing-vessels, 
unable to move, calling out to those on board, as he steamed 
by, in substance, " The rebels are coming doivn upon us 
xvith theram! Get yourselves out of here as fast as you 
can! " Porter never stopped with his seven gunboats to affi3i'd 
any aid to the soldiers, who were thus left by him to the fate 
he told them was imminent. This was on the 24th day 



of April. He came hnck from below as far as the Head of the 
Passes, or Pilot Town, and remained there until the 27th. 
Findins: nothino; coming down he returned to the nei^h- 
borhood of the forts, bnt did not bring back any of his mortar 
boats. 

I did not see this, as I had gone around into the Gulf outside, 
and on the 25th had begun preparatit)ns for landing my men at 
quarantine, five miles above Fort St. Philip, so 1 knew then 
nothing of Porter's movements. 

On the 25th I met Captain Boggs outside, he having been 
twenty-six hours in an open boat, bringing a message to me 
from Farragut, stating how his fleet had fared in getting by 
the forts, and that he had gone up to New Orleans, leaving 
two gunboats at quarantine. A letter to Porter, telling him 
the same, was enclosed with the message. 

The sole question between* myself and Porter is. Did he or 
his flagship and the rest of the mortar fleet sail away from tlie 
neighborhood of the forts, where they were stationed by Farra- 
gut, down to the Head of the Passes or out to sea, and remain 
there for a considerable time, till Porter believed it safe to re- 
turn to the forts ? I have caused a copy of a chart of that 
portion of the river, made by the coast survey, to be inserted 
here, so that the position of the forts, the Head of the Passes, 
and the Southwest pass down to Pilot Town, and the position 
of my ships at the Head of the Passes, may be understood. 

I declared that I could prove my statement. To this Porter 
now makes a series of rej)lies. each and all of which can be 
shown to be absolutely false : — 

First. "That speecli of his was a (h'unken s])t'ceh, you know." — 
Washington Star, May (i. 

jrhifiwer. The " Bosttni Herald '" says it was in tyj)e days 
before it Avas delivered. Porter made this charge witliout 
knowing whether it was true or not. 

Second. " There wei'c three officers who failed to take their shijis 
l^ast the fort. ... I will not give you the name of the otlieer wiio ran 
awav. I have no doubt General Butler means the .same man I do." — 
Washington Critic, May -1. 

Answer. There was no officer who ran away save Porter 
or those under his orders. I ehai'ged a " high officer," and 
there was no such one there who could run away other than 
l*orter himself, so he well knew whom 1 meant. 

Here is another statement of Porter regarding three officers, 
one of wliom, to save himself, he now charges with running 
away : — 



-^^:>.-,,^^ Cop'ED FRon U.S. 
77^-^ CoAsy Suf^verCHART. 



BAY 




" Our little sqinulron of steamers now [at the time of the surreiulei-] 
eoinpi-iscd nine vessels, three of them gunijoats [the " Itasca," Lieut. ('. 
H.B. ("akhvell commanding-; the " Winona," Lieut. Edward T. Kichols 
commanding; ami the " Kennel)ec," Lieut. John Russell commanding], 
that had failed to ])ass the forts with the fleet ; not from want of gal- 
lantry, but from various causes." — Porter'' s "■ Incidtmis of the War,"' 
irdge 50. 

Which of these " gallant officers " does Porter now say " ran 
away, hut whose name he will not give " ? They were all 
under his command thereafter, and with him all the time from 
the moment Farragiit passed the forts, on the 24th, until Por- 
ter took the surrender, on the 28th of April. 

Where, during that time, did they run away, Porter, if you 
did not run with them? They went down to the Passes. If 
you do not give the name, you leave the severest imi)iitation 
u[)on all of them. If you do give a name, you will bring that 
" ijallant " officer and his record out against you. You had 
Lieutenant Nichols, of the " A\'inona," and linssell, of the "Ken- 
nebec," in yoiu" cabin when the siuTcndcr was signed, and had 
them witness it. You cannot mean Caldwell, of the "Itasca," 
for you say he fell back bijcause the " Itasca " had fourteen shots 
through her, one having passed through her boiler, atid, be- 
sides, you ordered him so to do. (Porter's letter to AVelles, 
April 25, 1<S(;2. "Century War Book," Vol. II. ])age 4(i.) 
Answer, or admit yourself a reckless cidminntor. 

Your third reply is : — 

" I have in mj- possession a letter Avritten to me by Ciideon Welles, 
after the capture of the forts, thanking m(> for my etVorts, and saying 
that but for my exertions Admiral Farragiit could not have captured 
;New Orleans." — Washington Post, May 6. 

Ansicer. To make Welles' letter an answer to the charge 
of your running down to the Passes, seems a very lame de- 
fence. 

Firsts because Welles was not there, and did not know any- 
thing about the matter, except what you wrote him. Second, 
because his letter was only drawn out by and founded u|)on 
your own false and bombastic report, written and despatched 
while you were at Pilot Town, on the 25th of April, as will be 
shown below. 

Would Welles have written that letter if you had rej)orted 
to him the real facts, which were that you had the day before 
demanded the surrender of the forts, which demand had been 
refused, and that you had then run away with all yoiu" fleet 
down to Pilot Town, where you wrote your first rej)ort, con- 
cealing these facts, dating your report " Mississip[)i River," in- 
stead of Pilot Town, where yoii were, nearly thirty miles from 



\vhere you ought to have been, and asking that lie send you 
two ironclads from tlie North so the forts miglit be taken ? — 
Porter's letter to Welles, April 25, 18()2. 

You want the proof of all this? Have it; the date is fixed. 
Lieutenant Gerdes, of the " Sachem," says in his report to the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury that " he anchored alongside the ' Har- 
riet Lane' on the 26t]i, having brought Cajjtain Boggs with him 
from General Butler." And you add to your letter to Welles, 
dated the 25th, a postscript, giving the news that Boggs 
brought. And the " New York Times " correspondent wrote a 
letter on the 28th, since published, in which he says that 
"while at Pilot Town, on the 25th of April, he was comforted 
by the appearance of the ' Harriet Lane,' " your flagship. — 
Boston Herald, May 14. 

Why did you conceal from Welles the fact that you were 
writing your letter twenty-rive miles off from the forts, down 
the river, with all your fleet? Did you not also conceal from 
him the fact that you sent the mortar fleet down the I'iver 
for good, and that you sent some of them out to do blockade 
duty ? 

Suppose, also, he had known at that time that you had left 
the troo[)s, the nearest water-borne force to the forts, in sailing- 
vessels, ten or fifteen miles down the river. Would he not 
have waited until he heard further before writing that letter, 
and made inquiry why you and your fleet wei'e more than 
twenty-five miles away from your post of duty at the forts? 

Again, you have published Welles' letter. That shows that 
you cannot tell the truth about the letter even when you have 
it in your hand, because the letter does not say, as you say it 
does, " Only for your exertions Admiral Farragut could not 
have ca[)tured New Orleans." The fact is, you were the only ob- 
stacle in the way of the ca])ture of New Orleans, as it was capt- 
ured. Read the article in the " Century War Book," Vol. II., 
page 70, by Meredith, Farragut's private secretary, wherein 
you will find your letter to Farragut, exhorting him, among 
other things, " not to run by the forts unless he took your mor- 
tar schooners in tow." 

Welles thanks you for what you said your moi'tar schooners 
had done while Farragut was passing the forts. I, who saw 
what they did, do agree with him and Farragut, that those vessels 
supported Farragut most nobly. But I did not know, and he 
did not know, that you and your mortar steamers, which did 
not throw bombs, liad been ])laced by you in a safe position 
under the levee, where only their tops could be hit by the fire 
of the fort. But of this I will speak directly. 

Your fourth reply is : — 



'* Now, if I lia<l l)oeii vuniiinj; :iway, Iiow could the forts have surren- 
dei'ed to me, and is it likely that tlie Secretary of tlie Nav}' Avoiikl have 
coiigratuhited tcs if ire had been guilty of cowardice?" — Washington 
Star, May G. 

Ansiver. Not if he knew it. Besides, you ran away on 
the 24th and stayed away until the 27th, and took the surren- 
der of the forts on the 28th, after the men in them had mutinied 
and surrendered themselves to the array. You had had time 
to run away and run buck ag'ain, which you did. We will 
consider this matter further as we go on. 

Your next replies to my charges it is better to consider 
together. They are — 

1. " General Butler could not possibl}- have meant me, because ?«7/ 
ship was one of those ivhich passed the forts, as did all the rest.'''' — Boston 
Herald. 

2. " I was in the front of the fight.'''' — Washington Post, May 6. 

3. "InKVEK left the immediate NEIGHBOKIIOOD of THE FOUTS 

UNTIL THEY suKKENDEKEU."' — Boston Herald, May 7. 

" I personal]}' never left the neighborhood of the forts." — Boston 
Herald, May 8. 

" I did not go down to the Head of the Passes."— ^ J5osto?i Herald, 
May 9. 

Ansiver 1. In your official report of the 25th of April you 
say, when the last of Farragut's vessels had passed the forts, 
you and your flotilla steamers retired from a contest that would 
soon Ijccome very unequal — not that your ship passed the forts, 
as did all the rest. 

You will not ask for many quotations to j)rove that you can- 
not believe yourself when you contradict yourself, but in your 
official report of April 30 you say Farragut's orders were that 
you should suj)port him with your mortar fleet while he passed 
the forts. After Farragut ])assed the forts you gave the signal 
to your fleet to retire at 4.50 A.M. (report of Lieutenant 
Wainwi-ight), and in your report you expatiate upon' the glo- 
rious sight which the fleet presented above the forts from your 
point of view below them. If you wont up past the forts with 
the rest of tlie fleet, as you say you did, why did you come back 
all alone, and how did you get back ? 

Again, on the next day you wrote Farragut as follows : — 

" You will lind the forts harder to take now than before, unless their 
ammunition gives out. ... I hope you will opun your way down, 
no matter what it costs." — Century War Book, \o\. II., p. 7l^ 

If it was not a lie that you told to two or three newspaper 
correspondents, that your ship passed the forts, as did all the 
rest, it (lid not seem to "cost" you anything to get back again 
in broad <lay light, with both forts opening fire upon you. T 



9 

admit that yoii had just tlie boats to do it with, taking your 
description of the "Harriet Lane," and, indeed, the description 
of" all your mortar steamers. You say : — 

" The ' Harriet Lane' was a very small steamer, built for a revenue 
cutter, and was caught up by the Navy Department and turned into a 
vessel of war — a system, Isupposc^ we sliall adhere to in case of a diili- 
culty with a European powei- : fall back on the revenue marine, coast 
survey, and fish commission for vessels, and have a navy register filled 
with a formidable ari-ay of names, appertaining to a lot ot' rattletraps." — 
Porter's '■'•Incidents of the TFar," p. lOU. 

If Porter tells the truth, hurrah for the " rattletraj) " " Harriet 
Lane," Porter at the helm, passing Forts flackson and St. Philip, 
coming down the river in the hright sunlight of the morninfr of 
the 24tli of April ! The only possibility of the truth of his 
story is that Porter never before told the story of his going up 
by the forts ! 

" In the front of the fight, ^^ were you ? The order of Farra- 
gut was that you should leave your mortar schooners where 
they were stationed to throw bombs into Fort Jackson while 
the vessels were passing, and that you should take your mortar 
steamers, whose business it was to tow the mortar boats into 
position, and fire upon the water battery, except that the "Jack- 
son " was to tow the sloop-of-war " Portsmouth," a sailing-vessel, 
into position to attack the water battery. Was that " the front 
of the battle," the place of |)eril and daring? It might pos- 
sibly have been, except that YOU OHOSE where to place them. 
We read in the account of the transaction, as written by you, 
the following : — 

" AVhile these events [i.e., the passage of the vessels by the forts] 
were taking place, the mortar steamers had driven the men from the 
batteries, and had ke])t up a steady tire upon the walls of Fort Jackson. 
Although at first siglit my position in front of these batteries, which 
mounted six of the heaviest guns of the Confederate works, seemed a 
very perilous one, IT WAS NOT AT all so. . . . The enemy responded 
quickly, but our tire was so rapid and accurate that in ten minutes the 
watei- battery was deserted. During the remainder of the action I de- 
voted most of my attention to the battlements of the main fort, firino- 
an occasional shot at the water battery. — Century War Book, Vol. II.° 
p. 46. 

That you selected a place of safety with great care is evi- 
denced by the facts, as you state them, that the " Harriet Lane " 
lost two men (one killed and one wounded) by the knockino- 
away of a stanchion of the bridge, up above the deck, and the 
other six steamers had not a scratch on man or boat. 

"Except two or three masts, their hulls having been well protected 
by tile levees."— Century War Book, A^ol. II., p. 41, Article by Porter. 



10 

" When the fleet had passed the forts, and there was no longer an 3^ 
necessit}- lor me to liold my position, I dropped down the river with my 
steamers, where the mortar boats Avere anchored, and gave the signal to 
cease firing." — Century Wa?' Book, Vol. II., p. 48. 

Now let us look a little into your report as to the time 
during which these events took place. I turn from your official 
report to the re])ort of Lieutenant Wainwright, then com- 
mander of the "Harriet Lane," your flagship, made to yourself, 
and find the following : — 

" At .3.28 A.M., the fleet being all under way and steaming up the 
river, signal was made to the steamers of the mortar flotilhi to weigh 
anclior, and we stood up toward the forts, our duty being to take an en- 
fihiding position below the water battery of Fort Jackson. At 3.4.0 A.M. 
the forts opened on the leading ships, and immediately thereafter the 
mortar vessels commenced, and at o.50 were raining a rapid and con- 
tinuous fire on the enemy. The crew were now called to quarters, and 
we steamed rajjidly up the river to take our ajjpointed jjositiou. It was 
not until 4. 20 A.M. that our guns could be brought to bear. At 
4.30 A.M. a sliot carried away one of the stanchions and a portion 
of the railing of the In-idge, . . . which killed one man and seriously 
wounded another. We retained our position within five hundnnl yards 
of Fort .Jackson, firing as rapidly as possible until 4 50 A.M., when the 
last vessel was seen to pass between the forts. The signal was then 
made to retire from action." 

You see, therefore, that taking the statement of the com- 
mander of your own flag.ship, Farragut's fleet was under the 
actual fire of the forts an hoiu* and five minutes, while it took 
you more than one-half of that time to get the first gun of the 
" Harriet Lane " to bear, and you admit that your steamers 
ceased firing upon the water battery, which you were ordered 
"to enfilade" witiiin ten minutes, except an occasional shot, 
as you declare in the " Century War Book," and that you 
spent the other twenty minutes in firing at the battlements of 
Fort Jackson, which, from your position under the levee, was 
the only })art of her you could hit. You say in the same state- 
ment you had silenced the water battery, and that you had 
driven the men from it. 

It is remarkable. Admiral Porter, that whenever you say 
anything about any fact concerning yourself, some respectable 
gentleman contradicts you. You did not hiu't the water battery, 
because you could not train your guns down low enough to hit 
it, any more than they could lower tiieirs so as to hit your 
steamers below the u[>per decks without firing through the 
levee. You will find on page 99 of the same work the report 
of Capt. ^^'illianl B. liobertson, of the First Louisiana Artillery, 
C.S.A., who was in couunand of that most important work 
for tiie [)rotection of New Orleans, the water battery. I call 
your attention to this oxti-act : — r- 



11 

" No guns were silenced in either Fort Jackson or the water battery, 
at any time during this engagement. Not a man was driven fi'om his 
post at the guns in the water battery, much less from the battery itself." 
(Vol. 11., p. 100.) 

You see, admii-al, that when you hide your small steamers, 
" rattletraps," behind a sand-bank, you cannot very well hit a 
water battery on the other side of that sand-bank. 

Again says Capt. Robertson, on the same page : — 

" It would have been madness to have wasted any more annnunition 
than was necessary to drive away Admiral Porter, and all the vessels 
which had failed to pass the forts under cover of darkness. But as 
soon as it was light enough to see them plainly, we silenced and drove 
rapidly down the river all the vessels, including Admiral Porter's, that 
remained below the forts. . . . But to Farragut belongs the great 
glory of the capture." 

" In the front of the battle," eh ? You lost thirty-five minutes 
of the sixty -five during which Farragut and his brave men were 
under that terrible fire before you opened a gun even from your 
flagship, while you were running your steamers alongside of 
the levee, just below the water battery, to protect their hulls 
" below the firing " decks. And that you call "being in the 
FRONT OF THE BATTLE " ! You lost five and thirty minutes of 
the sixty-five that Farragut was under fire in getting near 
enough to the battle to fire your first gun. 

Again, you say you "never left the immediate neighborhood 
of the forts until they surrendered." I say you were below the 
Head of the Passes, quite thirty miles off. 

At 9.30 o'clock, on the, morning of the 24th of April, within 
three hours of the time the fleet passed the forts, you sent 
Lieutenant Guest in the gunboat " Ovvasco " to make a verbal 
demand, in the name of D. D. Porter, for the surrender of ihe 
fort, under a penalty of renewing the bombardment. The answer 
was a defiance. The i-ebels cared little for your mortar shells. 
At 12 o'clock you say you renewed the fire from your mortars, 
of which no notice was taken. At 4 o'clock you gathered up 
everything, and with all tlie steamers and mortar l)oats sailed 
down by the Head of the Passes and remained below untU the 
27th. On the 27th you sent up Lieutenant Guest of the 
" Owasco " with another flag of truce, with a letter dated the 26th 
of April, advising and persuading General Duncan to surren- 
der the forts, stating as a reason that you had "received 
communications from Flag Ofiicer Farragut, who is now in 
possession of New Orleans." Again : " Our troops are, or 
will be in possession of the prominent points on the river." 
(Official War Records, Series 1, Vol. VI., p. 531.) Allthisto 
induce Duncan to surrender ! You did not tell him that you 
had sent two mortar schooners eight miles ofl' into the Gulf to 



12 

"blockade," not boinl cud, tlic fort. How he would have 
laughed at that stateuieut, which you now make the reason of 
the surrender ! You were answered by General Duncan that 
he had had no such communication from his own authorities, 
and the coaxing application Avas refused. At the tiu)e that let- 
ter was written you were down at the Passes, having been 
below at Pilot Town, and retiu'ned to the Head of the Passes 
on the 2()th, then went up to the fort on the 27th, after having 
arranged with General Phelps, in obedience to my army order, 
to take possession of the forts when they should be surrendered, 
given while you were down at the Passes. On tiie morning of 
the 2Sth you sent the " Clifton " to Phelps to bring up Phelps' 
troops. 

When your fleet went down by the transports aboard of 
which were the troops, you or your officers cried out to the 
soldiers, "Get up and iret out of the river." I will now fjive 
you the evidence of this : — 

First, the official report of General Phelps, who had not got 
up to the Head of the Passes, to General Butler, when you 
and your mortar flotilla ran down by hiy troojis at the Head of 
the Passes. Durino" the ui<;ht of the 2r)th you came back — 
feeling safe, perhaps, where he was. 

"TKANseoitT Snip ' Nokth Amkiuca,' 

" Mississiri'i RivKK, April aO, 1SG2. 

" Siu, — In coniplinnce with general orders, Ajn'il 24, 18(i2, from your 
hea(l(iuavters, received at the mouth of the river, to take possession of 
Forts St. Philip and .Jackson with thj^ ."JOtli INhissacluisetts and 12th Con- 
necticut, 1 proceeded up to the Head of the Passes on the 2.oth inst. and 
joined those two regiments. All the nKntar boats, steamboats, and sail- 
vessels below the forts had all eady gone, or were going down toward 
the Southwest Pass, except a few gunljoals, which anchored jnst ahead 
of us. 

" I informed Commander Porter on the 2Glii, who was then at the 
Head of the Passes, of niv readiness to oeeui)V the forts, and directed 
Lieutenant Hall, my aide, to otter him an}' assistance that I eouid 
render. 

" The Commander [Porter] returned to the forts on (he 27th. On the 
morning of the 28th he sent woi'd by Captain Baldwin, of the gunboat 
' Clifton,' that the forts were about to surrender. As the wind was then 
favorai)le, I directed the ' North America.' with the ;?()th .Massachusetts, 
Head's cavalry and Manning's batteiy, under Colonel Dudley, to set sail, 
Captain Baldwin assisting me to tow her, and sent word to Colonel 
Dcming, with tiic 12th Connecticut, on board the ' Farley,' to follow us. 
Our progress with sail-vessels, against the current of the Mississippi, 
swollen to ils fullest height, was, as may readily be conceived, not 
rapid." — Official W(ir Records, Series 1, Vol. VI., p. 508. 

AVhen thi.s report of General Phelps was called to Porter's 
attention by the correspondent of the " Herald," he said : — 

" Gen(!ral Phelps must liave been mistaken, for I did not go down to 
the Head of the Passes. The conferences between us took place at the 
forts, where I had remained.^'' — Boston Herald, iMay 10. 



13 

Now, the next piece of evidence I luive is tlie report to the 
Treasury Department of Mr. (ierdes, coniniaiidinn- the United 
States coast f-urvey steamer "Sachem," who had l)een detaih'd to 
the mortar fleet, and who liad l)een sent awny on tiie 24th by 
letter from you to go with me to the rear of Fort St. Philip. 
He sa^'s : 

" April 24. The oiuiboMt ' Miami' aiu-liorcd aloii<i-si(lc ihc ' Saciicni,' 
bringing a verbal recjuest from Captain Porter to accompany (iciicral 
Butler's expedition to the rear of Fort St. Philip. . . . (icncnil 
Butler arrived in the 'Saxon' and called on nie in person, bringing nie a 
letter at th(^ same time from Captain Poitcr. I arranged with him to 
meet him as soon as my n^pairs had been made at Isle au Breton, and t(j 
send an otHeer with him in the ' Saxon ' to pilot his vessel through Pass 
ji rOutre. 

" April 25. In the morning Captain Boggs. of the 'Yaruna' steam 
gunboat, came on board to go with me to General Butler's ship. In the 
afternoon I got underway, the machinery working well forward. We 
dropped anchor alo/ig.side the ' Harriet Lane: and I had a coiifei'ence 
tvUh the cimirnander. 

" April 27. We got under way after sunrise and stood oft" Pass a 
rOutre, and brought over the bar, fifteen feet. At noon we arrived oft' 
Sable Island, where we found General Butler in the steam transport 
' Mississippi.' " 

Phelps could not have been mistaken in recognizing Captain 
Porter. He was the head of the naval force there. Pheli)s 
had never been up to the forts, and, being in a sailing-vessel, 
he could not get u|). As was his duty under my order, referred 
to in his rei)ort. General Phelps notified Porter, as the officer 
in command of the naval forces in the river, of his leadiness to 
occupy the forts when they should surrender. And accordingly 
Porter sent <:/oM'H the "Clinton,'' under Lieutenant Baldwin (see 
his report), on the 28th, and he towed him up. So that Pheljjs, 
not having been up to the forts till then, could not have met 
Porter at the forts, as Porter now says he did, to save himself 
from the charge of running away. Again, Phel()s says all 
the sailing-vessels, mortar boats, and steamboats below the 
forts, except a few gunboats anchored at the Head of the Passes, 
had gone down the river before he got there on the 2,)th. 
In Porter's official letter to Welles, dated Ai)ril 2b, at the 
place wliere Gerdes says he anchored and stayed all night along- 
side the " Harriet Lane," he puts in a postscript the information 
which he obtained from Farragut's letter brought bv Boggs. 

Ca[)t;iin Boggs writes a letter to his wife, dated " Mississippi 
Piver, U.S.S. ' Harriet Lane,' April 25, l.S(i2," which was 
l)id)lished in the " Xew York Times," May 8, 18t)2, in which he 
says : — 

"I arrived through out of the way -water to avoiil the forts to-day, 
liaving been in the boat twenty-six hours." 



14 

P,()o-ors left Farragut's shi[) at quarantine and came down out- 
side, where he met me, and he then went to the Passes to deliver 
Farraiiut's letter to Porter. 

My next witness is one furnished by Porter himself in the 
following words, addressed to a correspondent of the " Herald : " 

"There is a man iianuHl Winsor, now living at Newark, N. J., a 
newsi)apt'r man, who was with nic on thr ' Harriet Lane,' who can give 
you the whole history of that attair." — Herald, May 13. 

Winsor was a correspondent of the " New York Times." His 
account of the battle of the forts, published in the "Times," of 
May 8, 1862, was the first account j)ublished in New York, 
and was thought to be a great piece of newspaper enterprise. 
He wrote two reports of the bombardment, the first being sent 
by a schooner to Havana, to he thence forwarded to New York. 
A few days afterwards, a despatch boat being sent to New Y'ork, 
AVinsor wrote a second account of the sanu; events, dated April 
28, 18(52, on board the U.S. S. "Jackson." Elis letter, pub- 
lished in the "Times," was dated " U.S. [Mortar] Schooner 
'Dan Smith,' off Pilot Town, Mississij)pi Kiver, A}>ril 25, 
18()2." 1 quote from both, as they can easily be verified. His 
letter published in the "Times," written "off Pilot Town," on 
the 25th, says : — 

" VViien I ckjsed my letter yesterday [24th] I had no idea that I should 
he. down luu-e at Pilot Town in my old (juarters, more than twotity miles 
from the scene of the bonibartlment. Hut such is the fact. The mortar 
flotilla, with which I have been more especially connected, was ordered 
suddenly al)out live o'clock in the afternoon to get under way and repair 
to this place, where most of the vessels are now at anchor." — New 
York 'Jiiiies, May s, 1,S(;2. 

His second letter, giving an account of what took [)lace on 
the 24th anil 25th, says: — 

" Unexpectedly at that hour [live P.M. of the 24th] Capt. Porter or- 
dered the liring on our side to cease and the eutirc flotilla to get under 
way for I'ilot Town, near the mouth of the Southwest i*ass. ... I 
was compelled to droj) down the river with the mortar vessi^ls, and the 
next afternoon found myself at Pilot Town [wliere he wrote his " Times " 
letter], in no pleasant frame of mind at being so unexpectedly sent from 
the soiu'ces of information. The six steam-vessels attacrhed to the mor- 
tar llotilla had remained at the late .scene of action for the purpose of 
barring tlie enemy's advance siiould he seem inclined to come down the 
river, and in the midst of my grief I was confronted by the appcirance 
of the ' Harriet Lane.' Going on board I learned that we had had com- 
mmiication with Commodore Farragut, and that C^apt. Boggs, bearer of 
despatches to Capt. Porter, was then on tlie ship." 

And that was written the day upon which Porter wrote to 
Welles, and put in a postscript to his letter the information re- 
ceived by Boggs. 

Is it not proven that Porter and his flagship, the "Harriet 



15 

Lane," were at Pilot Town, below the Head of the Passes, on the 
25th, and at the Head of'the Passes on the 2fith ? Winsor wrote to 
the IS'evv York " Times," dating his letter '^U.S. Schooner 'Dan 
Smith,' off' Pilot Town, Aprir25, 18()2." In his second letter 
he savs that on the 25th of" April, as he lay at Pilot Town, he 
was comforted by the appearan(;e of the "Harriet Lane," and 
that going on board of her that evening he learned that Boggs 
had arrived with a communication from Farragut. On the same 
day, the 25th, Boggs writes to his wife, dating his letter on 
board the "Harriet Lane." And on the 2(Jth General Phelps 
reported to Porter at the Head of the Passes. 

It is thus shown that what Porter says, "1 never left the 
immediate neighborhood of the forts until the surrender" 
[28t]i], is wholly false. That he was not in the "front of 
the battle" is shown by his own statement, that he and his 
men were in no danger, and were substantially unhurt, being 
behind the levee. 

What did Porter and his officers say when they ran down 
past the soldiers at the Head of the Passes? 

A7iswer : — 

'• We, the undersigned, were on board trans]iorts below Fort Jackson 
and St. Philip in the Mississippi river on the morning of the passage of 
the forts by Admiral Farragnt. While anchored, and after the passage 
of Admiral Farragnt, a number of steam gunboats and mortar boats 
came in confusion down the river, and upon passing us, shouted to us 
to leave, as the rebel ram ' Louisi<ma ' ivas corning doivn and, would 
sink us. The gunboats and morlar boats did not stop, to protect us, but 
kept on down the river. 

"Samuel D. Shiflev, Lieutenant-Colonel, 30th Massachusetts Vol- 
unteers. 

("harlks a. R. Dimon, late Adjutant, 30th Massachusetts. 

Peter Tieknev, Lieutenant, Comj^any H, 40th Massachusetts Vol- 
unteers. 

Daniel Muhphy, Company H. 

Patrick Golden, 30th Regiment, Company H. 

William Robkkts, Company C, 30th Massachusetts. 

B. McCaue, Comi)any C. 

Andrew Fallon, Company F. 

Thomas Tohey, Company C. 

James Rilev, Company A, 30th Massachusetts. 

Patrick McCollough, Company B, 30th Massachusetts. 

Micheal Tully, Company K, 31st Massachusetts. 

jNIichael Lacy, 31st Massachusetts, Company K. 

Patrick Corr, Company I, 30th Massachusetts. 

Peter Campbell, Company C, 30 ^Massachusetts. 

Lewis Towey, Company B, 30 Regiment, M.V.I. 

Michael Harrington, Company B, 30th Massachusetts, 

Daj^iel Hearley, Company (i, 30th Massachusetts. 

Marcus W. Keyks, Company C, 30th Massachusetts. 

Theopihlus Coupe, Company G, 30th Regiment. 

Patrick McCarty, Company G, 30th Massachusetts. 

James F. Carroll, Company H, 30th Regiment, Massachusetts 
Volunteers. 

Stephen H. Lane, Company C, 30th Regiment, Massachusetts 
Volunteers." 



1«) 

Hundreds of other witiR'sses Ciin he had to tlie same facts, if 
they ar(! still denied. 

What was it that Porter and the}- were all afraid of? 

The rebel ram " Louisiana " ! 

AViiat did Porter then say she was, where she was, and 
what doing? 

He says : — 

" Tills was ii uiag-nificent iron steam floating battery of 4,000 tons, 
and niountino; sixteen heavy guns, and perfectly shot-proof. She had 
been brougirt down from New Orleans the day before, and on it the 
h()j)cs of their snlratioti seemed to depend.''' — Porter to Welles, April 30, 
18G2. . , ^ 

" Tliey are hard at work at Fort Jackson mounting lieavy rifled guns 
on it [tlie ' Louisiana']. She had steam on this morning, and was mov- 
ing about (luite lively. I tried to jiut some mortar-shells through 
lu-r roof, but without effect, as she moved otf." — Porter to Wella^, 
April '25, lS(;-2. 

" They are mounting guns on it, and 1,000 men are at ivork on ity 
— Porter to Farra(/ut, April -Jo, l.S(J2. 

" She was impervious to any shot we had."' — Porter's "Incidents of 
War,'' ]). ;")0. 

What did Porter plan to do with her? 

"There were now seven eflicicMit gunb'vits under my command, and 
I at once prepared them to meet the enemy. My plan ^yas to get as 
many of my vessels as possibh; alongside of the ' Louisiana,' each 
one 'to make fast to her, let go two anchors, and then 'tight it out on 
that line.' . . . At noon, on the "ioth, [ sent Lieutenaiit-( 'ommander 
(iiiest with a flag of truce to Fort Jackson, to call upon the com- 
manding ollicer to surrender the two forts; . . . and that if his 
answer^was unfavorable, I would renew the bombardment."' — Centnri/ 
War /looks. Vol. 11. , p. 48. 

liut what did Porter do? He immediately, as we have seen, 
took all his vessels and ran down the river to a place twenty- 
live miles off. 

The Confederates held a court of inquiry upcm the conduct 
of the commander of the " liOuisiana," and the findings of the 
court are as follows : — 

" On the 20tli of April Captain Mitchell descended the river Missis- 
siiipi in the ' Louisiana,' and took up a position on the left bank [de- 
scending] of the river, about hall a mile above Fort St. I'hilip. That on 
ieaviiio-^Xew Orleans the machinery of the ' Louisiana' was incomplete, 
her ni()tive-power imperfect, and her battery improperly mounted. 
That she could not on a fair trial stem the current of the Mississippi 
with her own motive-power, aided by two steam-tugs, 'that at no time 
was the ' Louisiana ' able to leave her moorings and pursue the enemy, 
from want of suflicient motive-power." — History of the Confederate 
Nary, i*. '2'M. 

I insert the following sketch from the report of (General 
Duncan, C.8.A., showing the position of the "Louisiana" 
from the 2()th of April to the moment of her being blown up : — 



17 



PROPOSED vC-'v., 
2"*-° PoSiTioiJ 

I^OJ^ L0UISIAN|^ 

NOT TAKEN 



fORJ 

JACKSO^J 




18 

By tlie foregoinn; it appears that "she tlitl not come down the 
night before," as Porter says slie did. Again, the condition of 
her motive- power and battery rendered her not only unfit for 
offensive operations against the enemy, but also for defence, as 
being immovable. Her guns all round could only conunand 
about 40 deofrees of the horizon, Icavino' 820 desjrees of the cir- 
cle from which she could be approached by an enemy without 
being able to biing a gun to bear upon them. The following is 
the testimony of her commander, Captain Mitchell : — 

" Admiral Porter states that the ' Louisiana ' remained tied up to the 
bank, when^ slie could not ol)struct the river or throw the Union Heet into 
coiii'usioH while passing the forts. The fact is that the ' J^ouisiana,' being 
innnovalile, could use onl}' her two bow guns and three of her starboard 
broadside guns, and those only as the vessels of the enemy passed 
dii-ectly in front of them, for tlie}' could be trained but five degrees 
either way. — Century War Book, Vol. II., p. 102. 

Was she shot-proof? 

"Above the forts we passed along the broadsid(>, and within fifty 
yarils of the iron-plated battery ' Louisiana,' lying at anchor. To our 
surprise slie did not fire at us, although she could nave blown us out of 
water. After passing her I dii-ectcd to keep the vessel ofl", and gave her 
a shot from the 1 1-inch pivot and Parrott, which was done, and, as I have 
since leai'ned from one on l)oard of her, with good eft'ect, tearing a hole 
the si/e ot" the shell through and through the iron plating of her bow." — 
Report of Lieutcmint-Commandcr Preble of Vie U.t>. gunboat " Katahdin.'''' 

The " Louisiana " remained tied to the bank of the river, about 
half a mile above Fort St. Phili[) (see diagram), and never 
moved from there. How could Porter see " a thousand men 
2)Utting giois on her at Fort Jaclc^on" on the left bank of 
the river, where she never was, more than a mile and a half 
from where she did lie, and "move about quite lively at Fort 
Jackson"? 

He says he "was trying to throw shells into her when she 
was lying at Fort Jackson," when, in fact, she was on the 
opposite side of the river, nearly two miles away, and she could 
not and did not move, as he afterwards admits : — 

"On the 28th the huge ' Louisiana' was secured to tiie l)aid<, about 
four hundred yards above"" [Fort St. IMiilip]. — Porter's "■ Ineidents,'''' 
p. 50. 

The plan he says he had for fighting her, which was the first 
time disclosed to anybody in 18.^5, and never hinted at to his 
officers or the Department, was, that his seven "rattletraps" 
should all hitch on to her and then anchor by two anchors 
each. This is too silly to ansAvcr, but it is in j)iece with all 
his other falsehoods. 

Your different statements. Admiral Porter, about the iron-clad 
ram when you fled from it, and what ycMi now a<luut, show how 



19 

entirely untrnthful you are, and how fi-if^htened you were, and 
it is, perhaps, still better illustrated in your statements about 
the fighting cai)acity of the forts. 

Let us be a little particular: It is now admitted by every- 
body that Fort St. Philip was not injured by the mortar fleet. 
True, you say in your letter to Welles, of April 30, " We 
fired at it witli only one mortar, and that for the purpose of 
silencing a heavy rifled gun which annoyed us very much ; we 
were fortunate enough to strike it in the middle and bi-eak it in 
two." 

Now, the truth al)Out that gun, as shown by Lieutenant 
Palfrey's report on our side, and Captain Squires' report on the 
Confederate side, is as follows : — 

" The broken rifle gun in the north-east battery [Fort St. Phih'p] no 
doubt burst." — Report of Lieutenant Palfrey, Official War Becords, 
Scries 1, Vol. XV., p. 435. 

" Of the guns, one banded 7-ineli rifle was burst by the explosion 
of a shell [its own] in its bore, near the muzzle." — Beport of M. T. 
Squires, CajJtain Jjouisiana Artillery , Official War Records, Series 1, Vol. 
XV., p. .55'2. 

So that Porter had done no injury to Fort St. Philip. As 
to Fort Jackson, he reports to Farragut : "You will find the 
forts harder to take now than before, unless their ammunition 
gives out," and begs him, "at whatever cost, to come back and 
defend the mortar fleet." And in his letter to Welles, of .April 
25, written at Pilot Town, he says : "These forts can hold out 
still for some time, and I would suggest that the 'Monitor' and 
' Mvstic,' if they can be sj)ared, be sent here without a moment's 
delay." 

In your belief, regarding the fighting condition of the forts 
before their surrender, both ofl^ensive and defensive, you are 
confirmed on eveiy side. Confederate General Duncan says : 

" We are just as (;apable of repelling the enemy to-day as we were 
before the bombardment." — Century War Record, Vol. II., p. 72. 

General \\ eitzsl, United States Engineer Corps, in his 
report at the time, says: — 

" Fort St. Philip, with one or two slight exceptions, is to-day without 
a s(;ratch. Fort Jackson was subjected to a torrent of l;3-inch and 
11-inch shells during one luuidred and forty hours. To an inexpe- 
rienced eye it seems as if this work were badly cut up. It is as strong 
to-day as when the first shell was flred at it." — Ibid. 

Captain Harris, of the Coast Survey, whose map of the forts 
is published by yourself, says in his report, made after the sur- 
I'ender : — 



20 

•' ()f the seventy-five gnnsin Fort Jaekson, four gnns were dismounted 
and eleven carriages were struck." — I Old. 

"(Jranting that tiie injury of eleven gun-carriages pennanentl}' dis- 
abled six guns, the disablement of ten guns in seventy-five is scarcely 
worth considering, with one hundred and sixteen guns in both forts 
still intact. . . . Farragut's loss, nearly all of which occurred in 
the passage of the lower defences on the night of the final attack, was 
four times the Confederate list of killed and wounded at the forts during 
the entire siege." — W. T. Meredith, '■'■ (Jcntury War Book,'''' Vol. II., 
p. 75. 

Confederate Colonel Higgins, Avhose letter of 1872 Porter 
cites, says on tiie 27th of April, 18(52 : — 

" Orders liad been issued to the officers and men to retire to the case- 
mates of the fort the moment the bombardment began ; but when it 
became necessary to repel the attack our batteries were instantly in 
readiness, and were at once engaged in a most terrific conflict with 
the enemy." — Ibid. 

Duncan also says they were thoroughly supplied with ammu- 
nition and provisions. With these conditions your frightened 
call to Farragut " ^o come down the river by the forts at ani/ 
cost," and to Welles to send "yon two iron-dads to help take 
the forts " even when you had all your mortar boats and nine 
gunboats below, was almost justified. 

But what did the army do with these facts before them which 
frightened you down the river? Protected from the "magnifi- 
cent fioating battery 'Louisiana,'" and the four rebel iron-clad 
gunboats that you saw at the forts, by two third-rate gunboats 
of Farragut's fleet, only left by him at quarantine, the soldiers 
landed and occupied both sides of the river, and caused the 
surrender of the forts by the mutiny of the men when we got 
in position. We threw ourselves above the forts, with no place 
to run away, water all around us, and New Orleans and the 
Confederate army above us. Running away was not' in our line ! 

How your vie\vs of the forts changed as soon as they had 
been surrendered, and you sought to glorify yourself and mortar 
fleet! 

On the 30th of April you wrote to Secretary Wells that 
"Fort Jackson was a perfect wreck." On the 28th you wrote 
the same thing to Farragut, when you had inspected both forts. 
You admit tiiat Fort St. Philip was unharmed, save that one 
gun was burst, which you say was done by a shell from one of 
your mortars, but, as it was burst by having a shell exj)lode 
inside of it, and as it was only a seven-irn'h gun, 1 beg leave 
to doubt whether you got one of your thirteen-inch mortar shells 
inside of it. Weitzel had read your letters before he made his 
re])ort on the 5th of jMay, and he })rovided for your case by 



21 

saving that the forts would look to an '' iiiexpenoncetl eye " pre- 
cisely as they looked to you. 

You cannot answer to these contradictory statements in your 
reports, any more than you can as to the facts stated in your 
interview, that you were misreported by the reporters, because 
after you had made the statements which I have quoted from 
your lips you say that you arc desirous of being correctly re- 
ported, and you only claim to have been wrongly reported 
in saying that you threatened to uiflict personal chastisement 
on me in New Orleans. On second thought that was too 
much for you to believe of your own falsehood, and so you cor- 
rected that, but corrected naught else, and the rest must stand 
as your exhibition of yourself. 

I fear that I have done for you what you could not do for 
yourself, — immortalized you ; for I have given a name to a boast- 
ing, vainglorious, calumniatory lie. Hereafter forever it shall 
he called a " Porter." 

To show you that 1 have had no occasion to change my ac- 
count of these transactions from the time I first gave it, and 
thus answer those critics who may say, " Why didn't Gen. 
Butler report all this before?" 1 insert here a page of my 
official re[)ort to the Secretary of War, made on the first day of 
June, 1(S()2, after I had read your romances, and I have had no 
occasion to either add to that report or take from it a word : — 

" I liave reail ('oiiinuindou' Porter's oflieial report ol' the sarreiicUn* of 
the forts; ;iiul here pcn-mit me, for the sake of my brave and enduring 
soldiers of the 26th iMassaeluisetLs and 4th Wiseonsin regiments, who 
waded in the swamps, in tiie rear of Fort St. Pliilip, up to their armpits in 
water in oixler to cut ott" its garrison and get ready to assault the enemy's 
Avoi-ks, to put the truth of iiistory right before the War Department and 
the country, by the simple enmieiation otthe tact that it was due to their 
ell'orts and that of their comrades, and to those alone, that Forts Jackson 
and St. rhili|) suri'endered when they did. No naval vessel or one of 
the mortal- lleet had lired a shot at tiie forts for three days before tiie 
surrender, and not one of the mortar boats was within twenty-live miles 
at that time, they liaving sailed out of the- river from prudent considera- 
tion of the prowess of the ram 'Louisiana,' whieii was su])i)osed to be 
' lively' near the forts. A majority of the garrison of F'ort .Jackson had 
surrendereil to my pickets the night before the officers made a surrender 
to Commodore Porter and obtained fi'om him lietter terms than has been 
or ought to be given during the war to a nsbel otlicer or soldier, and 
under those terms the rebel General Dunean claims a right to be and is in 
the army of Beauregard, giving 'aid and comfort,' and only holding 
himself ' not to serve in aruis,' which are the terms of his })arole. 1 
send a eopy of the terms of eapilulation. I do not wish to take from 
the well-earned and well-deserved (consideration dnetotiie navy for their 
iirilliant ex|)loit in running past Forts St. Philip and Jackson. I have 
borne and shall ever bear testimony to their <'ourage and gallantry on 
that occasion, but after that no shot was tired until the surrender, and the 
forts could have been held for weeks, if not months, so far as the bom- 
bardment was concerned, for, in the judgment of the best engineering 
skill, they were then as defensible as before the bombardment. 1 will 



22 

not ijovniit too great meed of praise on tlie part of anybody to take away 
till' merit fairly due my brave soldiers, who endured so much hardship 
and siiowed as nuich In'avery as the most gallant tar of them all, for we 
landed within live miles above the forts and 'lively ram,' proteeted by- 
only two gunl)oats. while the morkir boats, ))rotecteil by seven gunboats, 
retreated twenty-five miles below the forts and out of the rivei"." 

I crave your forgiveness for having held back my answer so 
long. Just as I got it prepared came this horrible national 
calamity of Johnstown, and I thought I ought not to publish 
Avhat 1 had written at the same time that the public mind was 
so atHicted, and thus call the attention of the country to a worse 
calamity, that of having such a man for admiral in its navy. 

I shall never refer to these matters in any future newspaper 
article, but I have another incident in your career, which, if 
my good health and })leasure will spare to me, 1 may feel it my 
duty to bring to the attention of the country in order that the 
people may learn another phase of your character, more deeply 
dyed with cowardice and falsehood than the two which I have 
now considered. 

BENJ. F. BUTLER. 



LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 



002 656 081 



